Analyzed automatically. Assessed 2026-10-04 from 1,448 user reviews, the store listing and its privacy label. We have not scanned the app's package, so nothing on this page was read from inside the app itself.
App Store
This analysis describes version 2.6.200 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.6.200, updated 2026-09-28.
Google Play
This analysis describes version 2.6.200 of the app, analyzed 2026-10-04 . The app may have changed since.
The store currently lists version 2.6.200, updated 2026-09-23.
What the analysis found
The catch list 1
Charges we publish at a strength we stand behind: measured from an artefact, agreed by independent sources, or reported by enough users to clear that charge's own published bar.
Context 1
Measured and published because a reader would want to know — deliberately not a charge. The measurement alone does not show a harm.
Positive evidence 1
Things this app does right, published at the same strengths as the catch list.
One source only — shown, not confirmed 2
A single kind of evidence. We publish these because withholding them would be the bigger distortion, and we do not treat any of them as a finding we stand behind.
What reviewers said
Verbatim excerpts from public store reviews, shown as corroborating user reports. They are not Appworthy audit evidence, and a quotation is not proof of the finding it sits under.
Reports that the ads misrepresent the app
false advertisement of gameplay
Game is nothing like the ads. Don't bother.
lying ad
Aggressive ad load
Scam full of ads and overpriced IAPs with fake, misleading, AI ads and fake reviews.
had to change my star rating from 5 to 1. I loved this game and would play for HOURS. but in the last day or so the ads have changed, it used to be completely optional for bonus rewards and items. but now you're forced to watch an ad…
Awful, horrible, didn't even play it just can't get out of the advertisement for the this game, I hope that Satan takes your souls to hell
Pay to progress
You absolutely need to pay real money to progress. Despite having "events" in place and you reaching a certain level within your server size.. say 22nd out of 100 based on your points, you won't get the reward unless you also reach…
Since the game was updated, it has become increasingly difficult to enter and play. almost always lags. Not to mention the idea of merging three servers into one, many of my friends have uninstalled the game. Every season is filled with…
Good game, has some issues though. Game is heavily pay-to-win. It is extremely hard to progress without paying money. I do like how you can get the paid heros for free however that takes extremely long and once you get it it becomes even…
What this app sells
From the store listing. Billing terms are read from each purchase’s name — the stores don’t publish them — so treat them as a strong hint, not a disclosure.
Show 9 more purchases we couldn’t categorise
These are really on sale; we just can’t tell from the name whether they recur.
How the automated analysis works
This assessment is produced automatically. Three independent signals are read — user reviews, the store listing and the store privacy disclosure — and each candidate finding is filed under the sources that support it.
No charge stands on one kind of evidence — with one published exception. A finding is either a measured fact that anyone can reproduce (an ad SDK is in the package; every subscription bills weekly; the privacy label omits a tracker we can see), or it is an interpretation — and an interpretation needs independent sources to agree before it reaches the catch list. The exception is a harm only users can see: a charge may publish from reviews alone, as “Reported by N users”, once enough reviewers raise it to clear that charge’s own published bar. That agreement rule is what replaced the human reviewer, not a model’s confidence.
There is no overall score, on purpose. A 0–99 number was published here until 2026-09-15. It was withdrawn because it discriminated too weakly to be the instrument — 44.7% of every pair of apps tied — and because a single number is a verdict where a count is an observation. What publishes instead is a row of measurements, each of which says what was counted and, where we could not look, says that instead.
Findings under One source only are real reports we do not stand behind as findings. They are shown because withholding them entirely would hide a genuine complaint, and labelled because publishing them as charges would be an accusation off a single source.
Several measurements above say “Not assessed” because no artefact we hold can answer them. A human review is what resolves those — and it can remove a favourable band as easily as add one.
Hands-on inspections are not yet open.